ETHICS | Notes

THE COMMON GOOD

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that argues for the goodness of pleasure and the determination
of right behavior based on the usefulness (utility) of the action’s consequences.

Utilitarianism claims that one’s actions and behavior are good since they are directed toward the
experience of the greatest pleasure over pain for the greatest number of persons.

Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill are the two foremost utilitarian thinkers.

Utilitarianism is consequentialist. This means that the moral value of the actions and decisions
is based solely or greatly on the usefulness of their consequences; It is the usefulness of results
that determines whether the action or behavior is good or bad.

The Utilitarian value pleasure and happiness; this means that the usefulness of actions is based
on its promotion of happiness.
Bentham and Mill understand happiness as the experience of pleasure for the greatest number
of persons, even at the expense of some individual’s rights.

PRINCIPLE OF UTILITY
Jeremy Bentham begins (his book, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation
(1789)) by arguing that our actions are governed by two sovereign masters—which he calls
pleasure and pain.
These masters are given to us by nature to help us determine what is good or bad and what ought
to be done and not.
The Principle of Utility is our subjection to these sovereign masters: pleasure and pain. It refers
to the motivation of our actions as guided by our avoidance of pain and our desire for pleasure.
What kind of pleasure is morally preferable and valuable?
In determining the moral preferability of actions, Bentham provides a framework for evaluating
pleasure and pain, commonly called felicific calculus.
Felicific Calculus is a common currency framework that calculates the pleasure that some
actions produce.
 Variable Description
Intensity How strong is the pleasure?
Duration How long will the pleasure last?
Certainty or Uncertainty How likely or unlikely is it that the pleasure
will occur?
Propinquity How soon will the pleasure occur
Fecundity The likelihood of further sensations of the
same kind
Purity The likelihood of not being followed by
opposite sensations
Extent How many people will be affected?
Source: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Overview-of-Benthams-felicific-calculus-variables-and-example-application-to-starting_tbl1_362694056

Pleasure and pain can only differ quantitatively but not qualitatively differ from other
experiences of pleasure and pain accordingly.
Let's imagine you are a doctor driving to a patient, a young mother who is about to give birth. It looks like she will
need a Caesarian section. It is late at night and you come across a car accident on the country road you are
travelling on. Two cars are involved in the accident and both drivers are unconscious and have visible injuries. One
of the men is the father of the child you are going to deliver, and the other man is very old. You do not know the
extent of their injuries but in your opinion, without immediate medical help, one or both may die. You as a
Utilitarian are now faced with one of three possible solutions:

You help the young mother who's about to give birth.

You help the young woman's husband.

You help the old man.

The outcome of felicific calculus would suggest:

Attending to the mother first is your primary concern as the doctor. The death of both mother and child is almost a
certainty if you do not act now, whereas the death of the men is uncertain. Furthermore, the pain of the mother is
clearly greater than that of the men at this time. There is a greater richness and purity in saving the life of a young
child who has, in all probability, a long happy life ahead. Therefore the extent and duration of the utility created by
these two people is a clear likelihood.

Attending to the young husband is the next priority. The pleasures of a new family—its intensity, duration, extent,
richness, and purity—are all clear probabilities. If, as the doctor, you attend him first his wife and child would in all
probability die. The man would then experience pain. The pain experienced by the widowed husband is likely to
outstrip any pleasure to be gained from continued life without his loved ones.

Attending to the old man is the last priority. The duration and certainty of his future pleasure are questionable
owing to his age—he has all but lived his life. This is sometimes known as the 'good innings' argument, according to
which the older you are the less claim you have to life.

Certainly, the doctor should not be limited to the three choices. To maximize the felicific calculus, he should try to
secure external help by calling another doctor to help the mother, and by asking people nearby and the emergency
services to deal with the accident.

Some critics argue that the happiness of different people is incommensurable, and thus a felicific calculus is
impossible in practice.
https://psychology.fandom.com/wiki/Felicific_calculus
Mill dissents from Bentham’s single scale of pleasure. He thinks that the principle of utility
must distinguish pleasure qualitatively and not merely quantitatively. For Mill, utilitarianism
cannot promote the kind of pleasures appropriate to pigs or to any other animals. He thinks that
there are higher intellectual and lower base pleasures.

PRINCIPLE OF THE GREATEST NUMBER

Utilitarianism cannot lead to selfish acts. It is necessary for us to consider everyone’s happiness.
It is interested with the best consequence for the highest number of people.
Is it justifiable to let go of some rights for the sake of the benefit of the majority?

JUSTICE AND RIGHTS

What is a right? Mill understands justice as a respect for rights directed toward society’s pursuit
for the greatest happiness of the greatest number. Rights are valid claims on society and are
justified by utility.
Society is made happier if its citizens are able to live their lives knowing that their interests are
protected, and that society (as a whole) defends (right to free speech, right to due process, right
to practice religion) it.
Utilitarian argues that issues of justice carry a very strong emotional import because the category
of rights is directly associated with the individual’s most vital interests. All these rights are
predicated on the person’s right to life.
Our participation in government and in social interactions can be explained by the principle of
utility and be clarified by Mill’s consequentialism. Mil further associates utilitarianism with the
possession of legal and moral rights.
We are treated justly when our legal and moral rights are respected. Mill enumerates different
kinds of goods that he characterized as rights that are protected by law. Mill understands that
legal rights are neither inviolable nor natural, but rights are subject to some exceptions.
Mill creates a distinction between legal rights and their justification. He points out that when
legal rights are not morally justified in accordance with the greatest happiness principle, then
these rights need neither be observed nor be respected. This is like saying that there are instances
when the law is not morally justified and, in this case, even objectionable.
Mill seems to be suggesting that it is morally permissible to not follow, even violate, an unjust
law. The implication is that those who protest over political policies of a morally objectionable
government act in a morally obligatory way. While not always preferred, Mill thinks that it is
commendable to endure legal punishments for acts of civil disobedience for the sake of
promoting a higher moral good. At an instance of conflict between moral and legal rights, Mill
points out that moral rights take precedence over legal rights.
Source: Bulaong, O.G., Jr., et al. (2021). A Course Module for Ethics. Rex Bookstore, Inc.